Jump to content

Commons:Undeletion requests

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page

Shortcuts: COM:UNDEL • COM:UR • COM:UND • COM:DRV

Other languages:

On this page, users can ask for a deleted page or file (hereafter, "file") to be restored. Users can comment on requests by leaving remarks such as keep deleted or undelete along with their reasoning.

This page is not part of Wikipedia. This page is about the content of Wikimedia Commons, a repository of free media files used by Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia Commons does not host encyclopedia articles. To request undeletion of an article or other content which was deleted from the English Wikipedia edition, see the deletion review page on that project.

Commons deletion (policy)
(Missing: 1 timestamp • 0 reasons • 5 subpages) • 1 malformed
95 copyvios • 80 duplicates • 2 adverts • 61 selfies • 35 others
v • d • e

Finding out why a file was deleted

First, check the deletion log and find out why the file was deleted. Also use the What links here feature to see if there are any discussions linking to the deleted file. If you uploaded the file, see if there are any messages on your user talk page explaining the deletion. Secondly, please read the deletion policy, the project scope policy, and the licensing policy again to find out why the file might not be allowed on Commons.

If the reason given is not clear or you dispute it, you can contact the deleting administrator to ask them to explain or give them new evidence against the reason for deletion. You can also contact any other active administrator (perhaps one that speaks your native language)—most should be happy to help, and if a mistake had been made, rectify the situation.

Appealing a deletion

Deletions which are correct based on the current deletion, project scope and licensing policies will not be undone. Proposals to change the policies may be done on their talk pages.

If you believe the file in question was neither a copyright violation nor outside the current project scope:

  • You may want to discuss with the administrator who deleted the file. You can ask the administrator for a detailed explanation or show evidence to support undeletion.
  • If you do not wish to contact anyone directly, or if an individual administrator has declined undeletion, or if you want an opportunity for more people to participate in the discussion, you can request undeletion on this page.
  • If the file was deleted for missing evidence of licensing permission from the copyright holder, please follow the procedure for submitting permission evidence. If you have already done that, there is no need to request undeletion here. If the submitted permission is in order, the file will be restored when the permission is processed. Please be patient, as this may take several weeks depending on the current workload and available volunteers.
  • If some information is missing in the deleted image description, you may be asked some questions. It is generally expected that such questions are responded in the following 24 hours.

Temporary undeletion

Files may be temporarily undeleted either to assist an undeletion discussion of that file or to allow transfer to a project that permits fair use. Use the template {{Request temporary undeletion}} in the relevant undeletion request, and provide an explanation.

  1. if the temporary undeletion is to assist discussion, explain why it would be useful for the discussion to undelete the file temporarily, or
  2. if the temporary undeletion is to allow transfer to a fair use project, state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

To assist discussion

Files may be temporarily undeleted to assist discussion if it is difficult for users to decide on whether an undeletion request should be granted without having access to the file. Where a description of the file or quotation from the file description page is sufficient, an administrator may provide this instead of granting the temporary undeletion request. Requests may be rejected if it is felt that the usefulness to the discussion is outweighed by other factors (such as restoring, even temporarily, files where there are substantial concerns relating to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people). Files temporarily undeleted to assist discussion will be deleted again after thirty days, or when the undeletion request is closed (whichever is sooner).

To allow transfer of fair use content to another project

Unlike English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects, Commons does not accept non-free content with reference to fair use provisions. If a deleted file meets the fair use requirements of another Wikimedia project, users can request temporary undeletion in order to transfer the file there. These requests can usually be handled speedily (without discussion). Files temporarily undeleted for transfer purposes will be deleted again after two days. When requesting temporary undeletion, please state which project you intend to transfer the file to and link to the project's fair use statement.

Projects that accept fair use
* Wikipedia: als | ar | bar | bn | be | be-tarask | ca | el | en | et | eo | fa | fi | fr | frr | he | hr | hy | id | is | it | ja | lb | lt | lv | mk | ms | pt | ro | ru | sl | sr | th | tr | tt | uk | vi | zh | +/−

Note: This list might be outdated. For a more complete list, see meta:Non-free content (this page was last updated: March 2014.) Note also: Multiple projects (such as the ml, sa, and si Wikipedias) are listed there as "yes" without policy links.

Adding a request

First, ensure that you have attempted to find out why the file was deleted. Next, please read these instructions for how to write the request before proceeding to add it:

  • Do not request undeletion of a file that has not been deleted.
  • Do not post e-mail or telephone numbers to yourself or others.
  • In the Subject: field, enter an appropriate subject. If you are requesting undeletion of a single file, a heading like [[:File:DeletedFile.jpg]] is advisable. (Remember the initial colon in the link.)
  • Identify the file(s) for which you are requesting undeletion and provide image links (see above). If you don't know the exact name, give as much information as you can. Requests that fail to provide information about what is to be undeleted may be archived without further notice.
  • State the reason(s) for the requested undeletion.
  • Sign your request using four tilde characters (~~~~). If you have an account at Commons, log in first. If you were the one to upload the file in question, this can help administrators to identify it.

Add the request to the bottom of the page. Click here to open the page where you should add your request. Alternatively, you can click the "edit" link next to the current date below. Watch your request's section for updates.

Closing discussions

In general, discussions should be closed only by administrators.

Archives

Closed undeletion debates are archived daily.

Current requests

File:Grubtheme sekiro.png File doesn't fulfil requirements for deletion

I believe that this file isn't eligible for deletion because it's author has released it on GitHub under a free license (MIT license) source and because this image doesn't contain any derivative work from the game Sekiro (also see: commons rule).

Thank you for participating in this discussion Kakučan (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose This is the only public repository of semimqmo on GitHub and they posted on Reddit that they just took this wallpaper from https://wallpapersden.com/sekiro-shadows-die-twice-art-wallpaper/2560x1440 where the author is not even credited. And maybe some people do not think of a software license applying to images  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose As noted in the deletion comment, there is no evidence that the creator of the image is the person who posted it with the {{Mit}} license at github. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:34, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see in this and this commit the final screenshot is composed of resources which automatically fulfill the commons rule of threshold of originality except this one (which is considered it to be not semimqmo's original work). I found this theory to be true but I couldn't find any license posted with this resource which leads me to think that John Devlin had given a permission to semimqmo to repost this resource under MIT license (otherwise semimqmo's repo on GitHub would've been taken down for copyright infringement). Thank you for your response Kakučan (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I say again -- there is no evidence that Devlin has given a free license. The fact that GitHub has not acted against this post proves nothing. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a logo for JS13K games. I am writing on behalf of the creators Andrzej and Ewa Mazur who wishes it to not be deleted. This image was being used on the wikipedia page for js13k also. Thank you for fixing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slackluster (talk • contribs)

 Support If this is the logo shown at the top of https://js13kgames.com Andrzej Mazur uploaded this file under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   21:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Although Ewa Mazur is mentioned on the web site, Andrzej is not. This logo was uploaded by USER:Mypoint13k in 2021. The web site has "©2024 js13kGames & authors". If the owners of the site actually want the logo freely licensed here, they must do it with a message to VRT. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is in https://github.com/orgs/js13kGames/people. He uploaded the logo on the website in a GitHub repository under CC0 in 2018  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This is free software. It would be very contrary to current practice that a non-free image would be distributed with it. So I think that the license applies to the whole package, which includes the code and the image. Yann (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yann I don't think so. Aside from the explicit copyright notice which I cited above, the legal section of the web site has
"As a condition of submission, Entrant grants the Competition Organizer, its subsidiaries, agents and partner companies, a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, adapt, modify, publish, distribute, publicly perform, create a derivative work from, and publicly display the Submission."
That is a free license only in the sense that no money changes hands. It does not include the right to freely license anything. Also, please remember that even in the case where the software may be freely licensed, the logo for it is often not. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is an agreement for entrants who submit games to the competition, not anything to do with the website itself, which in fact has no license on GitHub at all. However, one of the staff of js13kGames uploaded this logo in a different repository under CC0. The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted, which has not been done so there  REAL 💬 ⬆   15:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The license in a GitHub repository applies to all the files in it unless otherwise noted. Yes, I agree with that. Yann (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Sepahan Logo.png

با سلام لوگوی بارگذاری شده باز طراحی اینجانب میباشد و بنده لوگو را از روی یک ویدئو طراحی نمودم و کاملا اثر شخصی بنده میباشد.

 Oppose Complex logo, no permission. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the same logo https://www.instagram.com/wearesepahan/p/DHI2zQEIFnj, that post says it is from the 70s, is Template:PD-Iran 30 years after publication of a work by a "legal person" mean government only or business entities?  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:37, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same logo. The logo might be from the 1970s, but is the blazon from the 1970s or more recent? Abzeronow (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you are talking about.. @Hanooz do you know anything about this?  REAL 💬 ⬆   20:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edited "from there" to "from the 1970s" to make my meaning more clear. (And I mean to ask if the interpretation of the logo is from the 1970s or more recent) Abzeronow (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see now (I didnt know what "the blazon" was referring to). Now that I look more closely, I can't find this logo by reverse image search anywhere else than the Instagram account, so we definitely need to learn more from someone who knows about Iranian football clubs back then  REAL 💬 ⬆   22:01, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Muselk vs Ali-A (cropped).jpg

The file was speedily deleted for the reason "per COM:Speedy" without mentioning a specific reason as to why it was speedily deleted.

Presuming the reason being F1, the original source of the image was a thumbnail from a YouTube video that was listed under a CC license. The thumbnail does contain copyrighted Fortnite imagery, but was cropped to exclude any of it. There isn't a COM:NET issue as far as I'm aware because Ali-A does actually talk in that video. In other words, the subject of the file is affiliated with the uploader in that specific video. This isn't just some random upload of gameplay that put his face in the thumbnail for clickbait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TansoShoshen (talk • contribs) 08:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pinging @Yann: as the deleting admin. Ankry (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose without more information. Image included in a game video. Where does this image come from? Also what's the educational purpose of this? Yann (talk) 14:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that this was 2010-era YouTube, and that after scrolling across the videos of YouTube channel and checking with both Tineye and Google Reverse Image Search, this seems to be just a unique instance of Ali-A doing the "stereotypical clickbait face". The educational value is that the subject depicted, Ali-A is a notable subject with his own article on Wikipedia. TansoShoshen (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg

Hi, This was certainly published at the time, so the reason for deletion is not valid: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portret van een prostituee met een glas whiskey, RP-F-F00149.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:43, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we already have a copy: File:StoryvilleRaleighRyeGal.JPG. Yann (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it was "certainly published" in 1912? Per the MOMA book, Bellocq took these photographs for himself (he apparently was friendly with the prostitutes, don't know if he was a customer there) and kept the glass negatives at home, where they were found in some piece of furniture after his death. His main occupation as a photographer was apparently working for a shipbuilding company, photographing ship parts and machinery. --Rosenzweig τ 10:05, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Nosferattus: as the nominator. --Rosenzweig τ 10:07, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oversimplification - Many of the now best known Bellocq nudes are from the chest of glass negatives rediscovered in the 1960s but Bellocq also printed some at the time, both for the prostitutes themselves and their customers. As a professional photographer during his life he was better publicly known for his industrial photography, photographs of Mardi Gras floats (seasonal but extensive work, was official photographer for some krewes), photographer for the Archdiocese of New Orleans, and also did portrait photography. While the "Storyville" red-light district was quasi-legal, association with it was not something which would publicized by someone doing respectable work outside of the demi-monde (even if it was an open secret in some circles). IMO there may be a case that Bellocq images known only from prints produced by Lee Friedlander, may still be under copyright, this is not one, being one of the long better known Storyville portraits. Some Storyville historians have even questioned the attribution of this one to Bellocq. (This is mostly off the top of my head as a long-time researcher in early New Orleans jazz, which is an adjacent topic to Storyville history with some crossover, knowing and interacting with some working in the latter field, but some details are likely covered in the late Al Rose's "Storyville" book.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Infrogmation and Yann: Do you have any evidence that this specific photo was published before 1970? Nosferattus (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not much reason to doubt publication, as Infrogmation explains above. Speculations are not a valid reason deletion, and are much beyond significant doubt, which is required for deletion. Yann (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is definitely good reason to doubt publication. (1) I wasn't able to find any evidence that it was published prior to 1970 when I nominated the image for deletion. (2) The MOMA book about Bellocq's nudes doesn't mention any previous publications and seems to imply that Lee Friedlander was the first to publish them. But I don't know why I'm arguing with you anyway. You're just going to undelete it regardless of what I say. Nosferattus (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOMA book is not a holy publication. It is not surprising that it doesn't mention distribution of these portraits to the subjects and their customers, which counts as publication. Association with prostitutes was not something people publicized. Yann (talk) 09:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:حسن البيجو.jpg

Photo rights have been added under my username (ARABXOOPS) at the same link, please take a look.

https://www.facebook.com/elbejoo/photos/%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%B9%D9%83-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A-%D9%88-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%B6%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%B5%D9%8A%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D8%A7%D8%B5%D8%A8%D8%B1-%D9%84%D9%88-%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%83-%D9%81%D8%B1%D8%AC-%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%82/997644375136084/?_rdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARABXOOPS (talk • contribs) 10:57, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm

This work was first published before March 1, 1989, and I can't find any mention of the Beach Chair short made by Pixar in the copyright office public records. The original nomination at Commons:Deletion requests/File:1986 Beach Chair - Pixar Animation Studios.webm requested deletion merely because it was republished in a 1991 Liquid Television episode (Season 1 Episode 3). However, Pixar did not create the Liquid Television TV series. VTSGsRock (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Info deleted on uploader's request. Ankry (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Info There is no copyright notice, so without a registration the short movie is PD. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication." Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101. I believe this is the relevant definition for all post 1978 works.
So when was it published? Showing it at SIGGRAPH wouldn't count. The 1991 Liquid Television episode may have been the first publication, as it was distributed for purposes of further distribution. That would put it after 1989.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, per Prosfilaes. Thuresson (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Member and Observer states of the Arab League (orthographic projection).svg

This image was deleted by user @M.Bitton: because of a "copyright violation" however I created the image based on another map made by them which is on commons under the the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license and thus in the public domain, I did tag it as "own work" and I do admit I could have been more clear I used a base but if I had been notified of this I could have easily fixed it, I also didn't mean to do this because apparently if you select the "this work contains the work of other" option it does not change anything in the meta data. it also must be stated that I never got a notification for some reason and the image was deleted so quickly that I never had an opportunity to challenge it. PharaohCrab (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what public domain is. The base image may be freely licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0, but that's not "public domain". Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Victor Schmidt mobil: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license is not Public Domain. CC-licensed content is copyrighted, but available for any use, providing that author is properly attributed. M.Bitton was not properly attributed. And claim that the image was deleted by M.Bitton is false. He is not an admin and cannot do so. Ankry (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2025 (UTC) Ankry (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ankry you ping the wrong person and restate what they said
@M.Bitton you are supposed to notify uploader when you tag their file for speedy deletion. When someone put the wrong source/license please just fix it so we do not have to waste time like this  REAL 💬 ⬆   18:03, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he tried it just never got it through because a glitch or something PharaohCrab (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that is a difference of semantics and my point still stands that it was free to use PharaohCrab (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PharaohCrab, NO, it is free to use if and only if you properly attribute the creator. You tried, whether intentionally or not, to claim the work of others as your own work. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:56, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose This is a poor choice of base maps for this particular application. It was fine for its original use, which covered only the member states, all in the Middle East, but is not a good choice for the observers, because two of them are at the very left edge of the map and you can't be sure which they are. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per my comment -- poor choice of base map. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steeve-Ruben-2021-photo-PaulZeppenfeld.jpg

Vous indiquez que :

1. ce fichier enfreint le droit d'auteur pour les raisons suivantes : Copyright © Jessica MARC 2. Ce fichier enfreint le droit d'auteur parce qu'il provient de : https://www.ruben-associes.com/photos-presse/

En effet, ce fichier avait été attribué par erreur à Jessica MARC sur la page https://www.ruben-associes.com/photos-presse. Il a donc été retiré de cette page.

Moi, Paul ZEPPENFELD (paulzep), suis bien l'auteur de cette photo. Je vous remercie de bien vouloir autoriser sa publication. --Paulzep (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour @Paulzep
Quelles informations sont contenues dans les données Exif ? Est-ce qu'il y en a? Pour vérifier que vous êtes le véritable détenteur des droits d'auteur, je vous recommande d'utiliser COM:relgen. Une fois que toutes les informations ont été vérifiées par un membre de la VRT et que nous avons un billet valide, nous pouvons restaurer la photo. Salutations, זיו「Ziv」 • For love letters and other notes 07:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jacob Rettinger 1 01.jpg tight crop of sixth file below

Can I have these temp undeleted? It looks like the uploader used a CC license for every image and did not respond to any messages left on their user page. Even signatures were deleted, even though they are not copyrightable in the USA. Many of the images appear to be taken by the uploader, who appears to be a family member or they were taken by a commercial photographer and never copyrighted or never renewed or never complied with copyright formalities. --RAN (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Most of these for the reasons given above. The first might be OK, but it's a poor image. The next to the last might be OK, but the uploader's other works are all copyvios. The 1921 image is PD, but is the subject in scope? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Louton 5.jpg copyrighted newspaper clipping
  • File:Louton 4.jpg copyrighted newspaper clipping
  • File:Louton 3.jpg copyrighted newspaper clipping
  • File:Louton 2.jpg copyrighted newspaper clipping
  • File:Louton 1.jpg copyrighted newspaper clipping

Signatures are in scope and not copyrightable in the USA

File:Jacob Rettinger.jpg 1921

You wrote: "The 1921 image is PD, but is the subject in scope?" any dated image documents fashion. See: Category:Fashion in 1921. --RAN (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A studio portrait is made public (published) when it leaves the custody of the creator

From 1929 to 1977 you had to stamp the image with a copyright notice, the year, and the copyright holder. See for example: File:Vernon Dalhart in 1917 image number 1.jpg for an example that is deficient, lacking the year. If this image had the year and copyright holder, the year would be known.

  • File:Edgar Louton 1970s.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 8:16, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

None of the newspaper clippings have dates and one of the five has only part of the newspaper's name ("....County Press"). The others have no name. Since virtually all USA newspapers had notice during the period when it was required, we must assume that these did. Given the little we know about Louton's active dates, we should assume that they are post 1964 and therefore did not require notice. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We should assume that they are post 1964", don't make assumptions, temp undelete will allow us to actually check the date and if the paper from 1965 to 1989 followed all copyright formalities such as copyright registration and having a properly formatted copyright symbol. "Virtually all USA newspapers" is another terrible assumption. The New York Public library found that less than 25% of all copyright holders complied with all copyright formalities. --RAN (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


What part of "None of the newspaper clippings have dates" don't you understand? He began his career in the early sixties and was active until 2021, so I think we must assume they are post 1964. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again don't make assumptions. You wrote "What part …" Every part. Every thing you have said so far is wrong. Coverage of his career began in 1958. See: File:Edgar Myron Louton in the Petoskey News-Review of Petoskey, Michigan on March 15, 1958.jpg Once the news articles are temp undeleted I can find them in Newspapers.com and see if the paper complied with copyright formalities, which was required up to 1989. You seem to only understand the 1964 part of US copyright law that required copyright registration and then copyright renewal. Other copyright formalities were required up to 1989. --RAN (talk) 02:32, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A studio portrait is made public (published) when it leaves the custody of the creator" -- that is not my understanding According to the USCO, Circular 1:

"Under copyright law, publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership or by rental, lease, or lending."

Note "to the public" -- giving a copy to the subject is not distribution to the public. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:42, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect: "giving a copy to the subject is not distribution to the public" That is exactly what it is saying! "distribution of copies … to the public by sale or other transfer" USA case has said so: See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg where the relevant case law has been discussed. The original creation is the photographic negative, a print is the distribution of copies and those copies must comply with all copyright formalities. You have a narrow understanding of copyright case law which has declared the sitter is a member of the public. You have a narrow view of "public", appearing in newspapers or magazines is not the only way an image is "made public". --RAN (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I undeleted 2 old pictures. No comment about others. Yann (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:UN Press Release.jpg

Please restore the following pages:

Reason: {{PD-UN-doc}}: Published by the United Nations without a copyright notice, was left in the public domain in order to disseminate "as widely as possible the ideas (contained) in the United Nations Publications". It falls into one of the following categories outlined in Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.2 (paragraph 2):

Public information material designed primarily to inform the public about United Nations activities (not including material that is offered for sale)

See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Nations XavierItzm (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Túrelio: Thuresson (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Weak oppose The Terms of Use of the source site state:
(c) The Mechanism grants permission to Users to visit the Site and to download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, “Materials”) from the Site for the User’s personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell or redistribute them or to compile or create derivative works therefrom, subject to the terms and conditions outlined below, and also subject to more specific restrictions that may apply to specific Material within this Site.
As this clearly contradicts {{PD-UN-doc}}, this should be resolved prior to undeletion, IMO Ankry (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose It is a personal use only license -- NC, ND, no redistribution, etc. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per discussion. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mario & Luigi - Superstar Saga logo.png

Per deletion discussion, logo was deleted by being above COM:TOO Japan, though I don't think that applies since that logo was the international one (for reference, mariowiki:File:MnL_Logo.jpg, while the Japanese release has a entirely different version (mariowiki:File:M&LSS_Japanese_Logo.png). --SergioFLS (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In order to claim it published in multiple countries, we would need the exact publication dates in order to prove that it was published in US within 30 days since its initial publication. Ankry (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Super Mario Wiki page of the game states that the game was first released in the US, following next the UK. It cites the "Chronicle" section in Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the US publication date, interestingly enough. SergioFLS (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is indeed a US publication, it should be {{PD-textlogo}} and COM:TOO Japan should be irrelevant. Ankry (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Laventure.jpg

The photo was taken and uploaded by the subscriber. The photo meets guidelines and is not an image produced or taken by anyone else.


Sony May 29th at 12:17AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sony.laventure (talk • contribs) 04:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Deleted as out of COM:SCOPE. The statement above does not explain why this would be wrong. Also, it is not clear that the person using the nick "Sony.laventure" here is the abovementioned "subscriber" so it may be also copyright law violation (false authorship claim by User:Sony.laventure). Ankry (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: per Ankry. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:35, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demande de restitution de ce fichier : File:Euphrasie Kouassi Yao.jpg

Bonjour User:Didym, j'espère que vous allez bien ? j 'ai constaté que vous avez supprimé de Commons le 14 décembre 2024, une photo que j'ai remise à un participant pour la téléverser lors d'une formation Wikimedia que j'animais. Je souhaiterais donc savoir pourquoi vous l'avez supprimée s'il vous plait  ? La photo a été utilisée pour l'illustration de l'article de la femme politique ivoirienne Euphrasie Kouassi Yao (https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Euphrasie_Kouassi_Yao&action=history) --Aristidek5maya (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MossiMousso. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:19, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Katherine Usmar.jpg

Hello,

This was my first attempt at a page to detail notable, elected, Cabinet Council Councillors I believe that Katherine Anne Usmar meets the criteria for a Notable person.

I'd think managing a £400M+ budget for Gloucestershire County Council warrants a page!

I would like some practical help, as a newbie, in addressing the concerns/reviews raised. I have provided 4 independent references, as an initial start.

Best wishes, James UsmarWrites (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I have removed the speedy tag from the image, so there is nothing more to be done here on Commons. I agree that a WP:EN page is not out of line, but that is up to editors on WP:EN, not here. Given your username, I assume you are her husband, James. At the very least, you must create a user page declaring your relationship to the subject. See WP:COI for the strict policy on Conflict of Interest. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

File:Sarah Lewis, 2025.png

This image was shared by the photographer for use on Wikipedia after its original inclusion in a public video series shared via social media. The photographer submitted the permissions release, stating her agreement to publish the work under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International. --JLM39 (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done: Was deleted despite the VRT grace period due to lack of a license. @JLM39: In the future please make sure to include a tentative license tag in the file description even if it is still awaiting VRT. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windows 93 logo.svg

This logo does not meet threshold of originality. Only design that depicts a simple curves, shapes, etc. Absolutiva (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose. The mouth is not simple. The hair (on the left) are not simple as well. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Disc (custom logo).svg

It was deleted for being a duplicate file of... itself? Also an vector version of a portion of File:Superdisc logo recreation.png. --SergioFLS (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Taivo: Thuresson (talk) 07:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be my mistake. The file was nominated for speedy deletion as spam, but now the logo exists in en.wiki in en:Super Disc, so it's in scope. Also this is simple logo, so no copyright problem. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The undeletion discussion in the following section is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive.

Restore Katherine Usmar.jpg please

Hi my name is James and I am documenting notable Usmars. I am not paid, and genuinely want to document notable (as per definition) members of the Usmar family who have public lives.

Katherine is a Lib Dem Politician, currently serving in the Gloucestershire County Council Cabinet.

Please restore Katherine Usmar.jpg and the page that was erroneously deleted.

Thank you

James

 Not done: Duplicate request for a file that has not been deleted. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests&oldid=969879230"